Grand Theft Auto 5 Review - People Suck

[Zakarath]

As someone who also finds games not fun when I realize I despise the protagonists, I appreciate this review. I've walked away from games before, even when the gameplay itself was fine, because the characters or story was something I couln't get onboard with. And as I feel that a game should be primarily judged not on graphics, or scope, but whether or not it is fun to play, this review cuts to the heart of the matter. Guess I'll give this one a miss.

 

[WarpZone]

The game is actually pretty fun. It's closer to saints row 2 than gta 4. Also the writing is funnier than in saints row.

It's funny even though the protagonists are unsympathetic and the plot is depressing? If you say so. I just can't imagine how that squares with Greg's description of the game. Guess it's subjective.

Gallows humor, man. Dark things can be funny.

Yeah, but that only works if you're in the same headspace as the characters being hanged, or in the headspace of the characters doing the hanging. Video games are rife with examples of the latter, where the enemies run at you shouting obscenities, and you think "man, these guys deserve what they get." *BANG*

Doing it the latter way requires that the audience give a shit about the characters being hanged. You sympathize, so you keep playing because you want to see what happens. When they crack a joke right before their own inevitable death, it MEANS something to the audience.

I suppose you could make an argument for a game in which you play a douchebag and the player hates the douchebag he is playing, and so seeing the player's character get his comeuppance is satisfying. Kinda like the deliberately annoying characters in a horror movie. Except that even in horror movies, they always save one "pure" character for the audience to follow because CARING about a character is KINDA IMPORTANT in a visual medium, let alone an interactive one!

Besides which, if torturing the player's character is actually the draw, there are much easier ways to wring catharsis out of the game. Just run off a cliff and die. Bastard got what he deserved. Next game.

I guess for some people unlikable protagonists isn't a deal-breaker. If you're one of those people, can you explain why? Do you actually relate to these characters more BECAUSE they're greedy, short-sighted, and pointlessly cruel?

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I do agree that no game can be perfect, certainly not worthy of 100% or 10/10. There will always be problems.
Possibly the closest to perfection of late, i would imagine would be the mario galaxy games. They need no justification for themselves, yet somehow are highly polished and have a cunning simple/complicated mix of gameplay that anyone could pick up. Anyhow, no one needs to relate to poor gullible mario.

Tbh, i didnt dislike any of gta v main protagonists. But maybe i'm just a nasty bastard i guess, according to all these opinions. Actually, come to think of it, i seem to get disappointed when you cannot kill children in games they're included in. I always have to put up with the cretins in real life. AND they keep wanting to play my mario games!!! GARRHH!!

 

[Balkan]

The game is actually pretty fun. It's closer to saints row 2 than gta 4. Also the writing is funnier than in saints row.

It's funny even though the protagonists are unsympathetic and the plot is depressing? If you say so. I just can't imagine how that squares with Greg's description of the game. Guess it's subjective.

Sorry, dude. I talked about the game, not Greg's review. Let me put it like this- I played GTA IV because of the story. I play GTA V because of the sandbox. The writing is just a nice bonus, the "skip cutscene" button is always available if you don't like it.

 

[WarpZone]

The game is actually pretty fun. It's closer to saints row 2 than gta 4. Also the writing is funnier than in saints row.

It's funny even though the protagonists are unsympathetic and the plot is depressing? If you say so. I just can't imagine how that squares with Greg's description of the game. Guess it's subjective.

Sorry, dude. I talked about the game, not Greg's review. Let me put it like this- I played GTA IV because of the story. I play GTA V because of the sandbox. The writing is just a nice bonus, the "skip cutscene" button is always available if you don't like it.

Well, yeah, but even Greg said the gameplay was solid. He only mentions the writing because, like you say, the writing was better in the old games. There are actually times where NO writing (GTA 1) can be better than BAD writing, or even just realistic writing that doesn't add to the experience.

If the game makes you WANT to press the skip button the FIRST time you see a scene, that's not good game design.

I guess what I'm saying is, it sounds like lugoscababib discobiscuits.

 

[Balkan]

The game is actually pretty fun. It's closer to saints row 2 than gta 4. Also the writing is funnier than in saints row.

It's funny even though the protagonists are unsympathetic and the plot is depressing? If you say so. I just can't imagine how that squares with Greg's description of the game. Guess it's subjective.

Sorry, dude. I talked about the game, not Greg's review. Let me put it like this- I played GTA IV because of the story. I play GTA V because of the sandbox. The writing is just a nice bonus, the "skip cutscene" button is always available if you don't like it.

Well, yeah, but even Greg said the gameplay was solid. He only mentions the writing because, like you say, the writing was better in the old games. There are actually times where NO writing (GTA 1) can be better than BAD writing, or even just realistic writing that doesn't add to the experience.

If the game makes you WANT to press the skip button the FIRST time you see a scene, that's not good game design.

I guess what I'm saying is, it sounds like lugoscababib discobiscuits.

These things are subjective, like you said. I doubt that Rockstar intended to make an awful story that people will want to skip, but some won't like it.
I haven't finished the game yet, so I won't say that the writing can carry the experience. For now it adds to it, but not too much.

 

[WarpZone]

These things are subjective, like you said. I doubt that Rockstar intended to make an awful story that people will want to skip, but some won't like it.
I haven't finished the game yet, so I won't say that the writing can carry the experience. For now it adds to it, but not too much.

So the writing adds to the gameplay, but not very much. But it's also funnier than Saint's Row. Using gallows humor. And you're not saying that Greg was incorrect when he described the protagonists as unlikable and unrelatable?

I'm going to need to see an example of this writing. I literally cannot imagine a sentence that does all of those things at the same time. Go ahead and format it with The Escpaist's spoiler tags, as documented here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/markup_help.php Then quote me your favorite line from the game.

 

[Balkan]

These things are subjective, like you said. I doubt that Rockstar intended to make an awful story that people will want to skip, but some won't like it.
I haven't finished the game yet, so I won't say that the writing can carry the experience. For now it adds to it, but not too much.

So the writing adds to the gameplay, but not very much. But it's also funnier than Saint's Row. Using gallows humor. And you're not saying that Greg was incorrect when he described the protagonists as unlikable and unrelatable?

I'm going to need to see an example of this writing. I literally cannot imagine a sentence that does all of those things at the same time. Go ahead and format it with The Escpaist's spoiler tags, as documented here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/markup_help.php Then quote me your favorite line from the game.

You can't sum up an entire story with a quote, since a lot of the charms is in the delivery and context.
I clearly said that it's subjective. Greg Tito has his thoughts and I have mine. I'm not saying he was lying about his opinion.

 

[Tim Chuma]

There was a game in the 1990s called "The Killing Cloud" that had a torture mechanic that Amnesty International objected to so the developers dropped it
http://www.mobygames.com/game/killing-cloud

No chance of that now I suppose.

Interesting the game is rated R18+ in Australia for Drug Use and not "violence that is relished or cruel" although that applies to erotica, the Pirates! porno had to be released with a separate disc just for the fight scenes due to the Non-Violent Erotica standards for X-Rated content.

Movies such as "Dogs in Space" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092904/ were given R18+ ratings on release for "depicting a degenerate lifestyle" as did "Pure ****" that was banned for showing actual drug use http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075111/

What are they saying already $1billion dollars in sales predicted?

 

[sumanoskae]

The game is actually pretty fun. It's closer to saints row 2 than gta 4. Also the writing is funnier than in saints row.

It's funny even though the protagonists are unsympathetic and the plot is depressing? If you say so. I just can't imagine how that squares with Greg's description of the game. Guess it's subjective.

Gallows humor, man. Dark things can be funny.

Yeah, but that only works if you're in the same headspace as the characters being hanged, or in the headspace of the characters doing the hanging. Video games are rife with examples of the latter, where the enemies run at you shouting obscenities, and you think "man, these guys deserve what they get." *BANG*

Doing it the latter way requires that the audience give a shit about the characters being hanged. You sympathize, so you keep playing because you want to see what happens. When they crack a joke right before their own inevitable death, it MEANS something to the audience.

I suppose you could make an argument for a game in which you play a douchebag and the player hates the douchebag he is playing, and so seeing the player's character get his comeuppance is satisfying. Kinda like the deliberately annoying characters in a horror movie. Except that even in horror movies, they always save one "pure" character for the audience to follow because CARING about a character is KINDA IMPORTANT in a visual medium, let alone an interactive one!

Besides which, if torturing the player's character is actually the draw, there are much easier ways to wring catharsis out of the game. Just run off a cliff and die. Bastard got what he deserved. Next game.

I guess for some people unlikable protagonists isn't a deal-breaker. If you're one of those people, can you explain why? Do you actually relate to these characters more BECAUSE they're greedy, short-sighted, and pointlessly cruel?

You're confusing admirable for sympathetic. You can empathize with someone no matter how horrid they are, as long as their well characterized.

Take Kratos; he's an unarguably vile creature, but he's also a sympathetic one. I don't empathize with Kratos because I would go out for a drink with him, I empathize with Kratos because he's a human being with aspirations and frustrations like any other.

Kratos is by nearly all account evil, but he's not evil for no reason. And because I understand why he is the way he is, I can empathize with him, we can see things from his point of view no matter how despicable it is, because if I had lived the kind of life he lived I might be just as bad.

Besides, why do you have to be emotionally invested in a story for it to be humorous? Tell me, what games or films do you find funny?

 

[Mausthemighty]

Finally a review that criticizes GTA V! Thank you for not giving a ten/five stars to that game!

 

[sageoftruth]

I think you are missing the point, the original GTA was purely that. A scumbag criminal who would do anything for $$$, so in that sense, in my mind anyway, it is getting back to the original ethos of the game. As much as I like a good story I found the more cut scenes I had to sit through in GTA IV, the less I cared about the story. It's about balance, so I will be curious to see how this game pans out.

I dunno. In the original, I think he was pretty much just a blank slate. The only thing you really know about him is that he's a criminal with a treacherous ex-girlfriend, leaving you to fill in the gaps as you wished. It sounds like this new game is going out of its way to portray them as scumbags.

 

[Adultism]

I want to add my two cents, I've been playing Franklins like 4th mission and I'm stuck because they AI is retarded. Also I keep running into immersion breaking glitches as well as glitches that just make me go ugh or fail missions.

EDIT: Also escaping cops is almost impossible, I'm trying to escape 3 star right now in a mission and its REALLY hard, been trying for 2 hours now. They either disable my car with their TERMINATOR ACCURACY or they ram the shit out of me and I can't get away. Then when my car breaks down they destroy me in like 4 seconds.

WTF IS THIS SHIT

 

[Eve Charm]

You know what, I had more fun with saints row 4.

The driving sucks in this game, otherwise unless you activate franklins god driving mode which lets you break all the physics they tried to create and push everything around like your car is a tank. Which is just even dumber.

 

[Hazy]

Finally a review that criticizes GTA V! Thank you for not giving a ten/five stars to that game!

There's really not a whole lot to criticize. The game has fully improved upon everything that was a detriment in previous titles, while taking no steps back, making it fully deserving of the praise it gets.

I said it before, and I'll say it again: do not miss this game. It's an absolute marvel of genius game design.

Also: the review makes the protagonists out to be way worse people than they really are... in Michael and Franklin's case, anyway. Trevor is supposed to be unlikeable - he's a wild dog.

Spoiler

Michael tells his son he only kills when he has to, and that he doesn't find joy in it at all. In the opening mission, a lowly security guard unmasks him and tells him that he's seen his face. He replies with "You forget a thousand things every day. Make this one of them," before Trevor shoots him in the head, to which Michael replies "you didn't have to do that!"

Franklin loathes the gang bangers, and out of desperation, ends up doing things he would prefer not to do: kidnapping, killing, etc. His friend Lamar coerces him into doing jobs with him, and only when it's too late for Franklin to back out does he let Franklin in on what's really going down.

 

[MetroidNut]

Wow, GTA V sounds almost as bad as those other games where you commit discomforting acts of violence for ethically-dubious reasons. What were they called again...Spec Ops: The Line? Deus Ex? I forget.

 

[EmperorZoltan]

GTA 5 escapist review score: 3.5/5 stars.
GTA 5 metacritic user average score: 8.2/10

I think hell just froze over...

 

[Adon Cabre]

Everything he said appealed to me about this game. Even the negatives... I want to play a story as a vile individual because that's actually something the industry is lacking at present.

So if the only cons he has with the game is how ruthless, evil and despicable the protagonists are? Sounds like a 5/5 review to me.

Will get when on PC.

Edit: upon further reflection I think giving it a 3.5/5 is a bit strange since the only reason given is what could be considered a truly subjective one.

Using a recent release like Total War: Rome II as an example the game has issues that are simply not subjective: incredible load times, bugs bugs bugs, a lack of transparency in the political system, leveling paths hidden in the in-game manual, terrible battle AI, and baffling building pros/cons (like something that gives you 12 bonus to public order in one way also gives you -12 to public order in another way). All of those things can be universally agreed to be negative for the game.

On the flip side, disliking an evil protagonist is a subjective thing, other people might love the idea. To rate the game in a negative manner because of it, rather than mention it as a problem the reviewer had on a PERSONAL level, I feel isn't doing the already broken gaming metric score any favors.

Alas, we come to the question: are games a work of art, or just a bunch of code spliced together? Games are art, and characterization and plot dynamism can be subjectively reviewed:

[li]Are character's motives neatly described or relate-able?[/li]
[li]Was there any fulfillment in the 60 hour story-line? (that would be huge for me)[/li]
[li]Did one part of the story drag on and get boring?[/li]

It's difficult for this tech culture to focus on the artistic side as most of this community is buried in the pockets of the PC gamer dominated net. But somethings are more important than mechanics, frame rates and pixelation; and many games have been forgiven their shoddy design because so much effort placed in creating a meaningful experience.

Fallout 3 bugged horribly, but it was game of the year because of that experience -- it's dark tone contrasted by brighter elements shining throughout the wasteland.

Characters that are just bad, bad and more bad will choke the emotional context out of some people. Apparently, it happened to one reviewer.

Has a character or story within a game (or lack thereof) ever turned you off to the whole thing?

It's happened to me.​

 

[Adon Cabre]

Wow, GTA V sounds almost as bad as those other games where you commit discomforting acts of violence for ethically-dubious reasons. What were they called again...Spec Ops: The Line? Deus Ex? I forget.

Spec Ops took a side as the character was confronted and had to make choices about the side he would take -- good or evil, corrupt or not.

Dues Ex: Human Revolutions opened up several metaphysical dialogues between in-game characters on the sanctity of the human body; and every side of the fight had a silver lining.